The Merton/Columbia Project
Kenneth Fox email: [email protected]
When I began what has become the Merton/Columbia Project the working title was Beyond Causation, a “whither social theory” notion. It involved going back to the mid--60s when I first encountered Talcott Parsons’ The Social System (1950?) and The Structure of Social Action (1938?). I knew The Social System had met with a lot of scepticism about whether society is a system in any meaningful sense. “System” conjured forces interacting and opposing, generating change from one state of the system at T zero to another later at T one.
There had been less scepticism about the theory of the operation of social systems: structural functionalism. Institutions performed functions necessary to society. Institutions were arrayed in structures and Individuals occupied roles within institutions. Much of the discussion centered upon professional roles. Professions evolved, allowing institutional functions to be more effectively performed. Bureaucracy also endured much attention as the pattern of behavior within institutions. As is illustrated below, Robert Merton, a student of Parsons’ in the mid-1930s, who emerged as one of the leading structural functionalists, was intensely interested in developing research methods for testing hypotheses posed by structural functionalism treated as a theory.
Given the potentially mechanistic character of this type of theory when practically applied, it is remarkable to see what Merton and his Columbia University colleagues did with it. Almost every year beginning in the mid-1940s, soon after Merton arrived at Columbia, he taught a course for graduate sociology students labelled History of Sociological Theory. In 1945-1947 the specific subject was "Social Organization of Housing Communities" for which the readings included prominent items of the planning literature of that time: Modern Housing by Catherine Bauer; Lewis Mumford's "The Planned Community" in Architectural Forum, April 1933; Rehousing America by Henry Wright.... A "Brief Bibliography on Growth of the City" accompanied the syllabi and includes Harland Bartholomew's Urban Land Uses, Homer Hoyt's One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago; and the multi-volume Regional Survey of New York and Environs, (1929)....
My sense of why housing, communities and community planning were attractive as an approach to developing structural functional theory involves three factors: 1. communities can be treated as social structures; 2. community planning can be treated as functional responses to social needs; and 3. cities had been a prominent focus of the American sociology of the previous generation, from which a new theoretical and practical orientation could evolve. In published and manuscript materials, Merton has discussed the development of structural functionalism and aspects of that development appear in these syllabi and the bibliography. Much more is available throughout the Papers, including notes of several talks Merton gave in the early 1970s. He credits Parsons chiefly, and a group of Parsons' Harvard graduate students of the mid-1930s, students drawn together by their alienation from the sociology they were crammed full of as undergraduates. Merton was one of these. (Kingsley Davis was another; I continue to seek names of the others; Merton does not name them in the talks.)
Prominent in the earlier sociology was the work of the "Chicago School", led by Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, Roderick McKenzie and, a bit later, Louis Wirth. Their approach involved such notions as "natural areas" of the city, "neighborhoods" as objects of analysis, and types of cities: "satellite" cities, suburbs.... Following upon their work in the 1920s this evolved as urban "ecology" which ran parallel with the development of structural functionalism, although with less promotion as a "theory". Ecology has tended to be more descriptive, emphasizing classification. I have sometimes called this sort of approach "descriptive" theory. Louis Wirth's article "Urbanism as a way of life" is a major achievement of this approach, published in 1938.
I have attached three items from the Merton papers (see tabs above). Despite appearing here, they remain the property of the Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library and of the Robert Merton Literary Estate. This means that they must not be copied or otherwise appropriated from this website without the express authorization of the Library and the Estate. Permission has been provided for the items to be displayed here. It is essential to the ongoing development of access to archival materials on websites such as this one that there not be abuses of the permission conditions.
The first document is the syllabus for Sociology 150 given in Spring 1947: Social Organization of Housing Communities. Merton developed this course as the offering for that semester under the general heading "History of Sociological Theory", indicating that the larger objective was to explain how studying housing communities contributed to the development of theory. Items such as Catherine Bauer's Modern Housing could be analyzed to interpret housing development in terms of functions performed to meet needs. Charles Abrams's The Future of Housing could also be analyzed to argue that functions would be central to housing developments to come. Henry Wright's Rehousing Urban America represents a social structure perspective, in that all housing nationwide is conceptualized as an entity which can then be analyzed to argue that functions are central to the nationwide character of the "structure". What I expect to be able to show is that these items were evidence for Merton to claim that social structure and associated functions had already been recognized by people looking at housing and communities. Structural-functional theory could therefore be developed with these materials as its content.
The role of the sociology of the previous generation is somewhat in evidence here and more so in the following items. The ecological approach of the Chicago school argued in terms of areas of cities being constituted by aspects of the city in its entirety. So for example one sees further down that students were directed to Zorbaugh's The Gold Coast and the Slum, one of the classic Chicago treatises and still, today, enlightening as well as fun to read. Treating all of the housing of Chicago's population as a single entity would have gone against the grain of the Chicago School/ecological approach. I don't believe that for Merton any of this meant that the sociology of the 20s was not important and valuable to developing the structural-functional theory of the 40s and following. An interesting aspect of the syllabus and the bibliography that may reflect Merton's ambivalence about the previous generation is that neither includes a prominent article by another of his Harvard professors, Pitrim Sorokin: "Is Accurate Social Planning Possible, American Sociological Review, 1, no. 1, Feb. 1936, 25. Merton's complicated personal and professional relationship with Sorokin is well known so there is no possibility he omitted this item inadvertently.
Another source for development of functional theory was functional theory in social anthropology. Merton explains in his informal history of 1971 that the work of A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski was particularly influential. One article of Radcliffe-Brown's is assigned here. Merton held John Dollard in very high regard and routinely assigned his Caste and Class in a Southern Town in his classes. Merton prized social anthropology for its methods, especially for field work. In addition to absorbing theory, students in Sociology 150 were being prepared to do field work for a course paper and hopefully, for many of them, for their dissertations.
The second document is a bibliography of items to provide the students a background and foundation in city analyses of various types: historical, economic, cultural and so on. Sociology 149 was taught in the Fall semester and followed by 150 in the Spring. I am hoping to find a syllabus for 149 as my digging in the Papers continues. With his immersion in these items, Merton could have taught an excellent and very up-to-date course in city planning. Columbia had a prominent architectural school at this time; I need to find out whether they offered a planning degree as well.
On this list we see items by W. Lloyd Warner, including Social Life of a Modern Community (1941), the first of Warner's multi-volume study of Yankee City (Newburyport, MA). Warner was twelve years or so older than Merton but overlapped his time at Harvard for about two years. Warner was a grad student in both Anthropology and Business, and went on to teach at Chicago as professor of anthropology and sociology. (see Warner's Wikipedia entry). For Merton, Yankee City was structural-functional sociology, and in 1947 it was the outstanding published example of such analysis.
Also very important are Robert and Helen Lynd's Middletown (1929) and Middletown in Transition (1937). Middletown appears on the syllabus and Middletown in Transition on this list. Together they constitute an extremely broad but also detailed analysis of Muncie, Indiana, home at that time of the Ball Glass Jar Company and of a large Chevrolet transmission plant. Robert Lynd obtained his Ph.D. in sociology at Columbia n 1931 and immediately began a long career in the Columbia department. His relationship to structural-functional theory is diffuse; he considered himself to be studying the differing "cultures" of social classes and the focus of the two Middletown studies is the differences between the cultures of the "business" class and the "working" class. Probably the Lynds' chief contribution to developing structural-functional theory was their treatment of the differing values of the business and working classes. Throughout its history structural-functional theory struggled to deal adequately with "values": how they arise, how conformity to them is maintained; how they change. Values are prominent in Parsons's famous (notorious?) four fold schema, but always shadowed by doubts about their role, including Parsons's own doubts.
The third document is proving to be the most interesting of the three. It describes twelve proposed topics for course papers the students would research and write in the Spring semester. Item 4 "Cross-cultural Comparisons of the Concepts of Privacy" is intriguing. Cross-cultural refers to classes with differing cultures, the Lynd's approach. In terms of developing structural-functional theory, the topic is notable for referencing "functions" of privacy. This means its functions for society, not for individuals, for whom privacy would serve psychological needs. (I am trying to avoid getting entangled in social psychology versus sociology, both here and in my project generally) To a city planner of 1947, this notion of a community-wide function performed by "privacy" would presumably have seemed important to ponder, particularly how to "ensure" adequate privacy. Radburn, Sunnyside Gardens, Greenbelt and pioneering projects like them built from the 20s through the 40s clearly incorporated a lot of thought about what the "lived experience" of the eventual residents would be like, including whether they would feel they had enough privacy. Pardon the "lived experience", a notion I actually despise. Merton's own research at this time included a study of a low-income housing development in New Jersey. The tasks included the types of analysis proposed here in items 2, 7 and 8-11. Department graduate students assisted Merton on this project;
A practical aspect of Merton's way of proceeding becomes very interesting in the context of our roundtable on websites and blogs. Merton's published work is remarkably different from other sociologists in that it tends to consist of almost literary treatments of concepts and topics: anomie, the "unanticipated consequences of purposive social action", "science and democracy", "the self-fulfilling prophecy" (how many people realize Merton contrived this now ubiquitous notion in 1948). He also seems to have been first to use the term "role model". Last, appearing posthumously, is The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity, which many consider pure pleasure to read (for sociologists anyway). Because of his unique way of choosing what to publish, there are quite a few aspects of the theory he came to espouse that are not available in the published works. Prominent among these is how social change is conceived in the theory. Merton's response to questions about this was to say the treatment was available in "oral publication", meaning class lectures or other public presentations. On social change he was pressed harder and following the appearance of a festschrift published in 1975 Merton took to directing attention to a chapter by Arthur Stinchcombe, then at UC Berkeley: "Merton's Theory of Social Structure" (see: Lewis Coser, ed. The Idea of Social Structure, Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, New York, 1975, 11-33.) I think what we are now doing with websites and blogs fits nicely within Mertonian oral publication.
Stinchcombe's piece is lucid and concise and provides an excellent overview, although far from non-controversial. Stinchcombe claims Merton believes "the choice between socially structured alternatives" is the "process" that is "central to social structure". (the quoted bits are Stinchcombe's). "For Merton", Stinchcombe writes, "the utility or reinforcement of a particular alternative choice is thought of as socially established, as part of the institutional order." (at 12). The focus, for Merton, of these "choices with institutional consequence", is on "variations in the rates of choice by people differently located in the social order." (also at 12). An example would be Rosa Parks and the many months long Birmingham bus boycott she sparked. Requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus was part of the institutional order. Refusing to sit there was an "alternative choice". The whites in the front of the buses and the blacks in the back were "differently located in the social order". Und so weiter...
The Columbia-Lavanburg Housing Study
In the 1945, soon after joining the Columbia Sociology Department, Merton became director of a study of planned housing communities commissioned and funded by the Fred L. Lavanburg Foundation. involved in the Hilltown-Craftown study: a survey of two planned communities of similar size-about seven hundred households-but different racial composition and economic setting. Hilltown was within the city limits of Piittsburgh, while Craftown was in Linden, New Jersey, part of metropolitan Newark. Craftown was a federal project named Winfield Park. The actual name of Hilltown remains to be discovered.
Craftown was designed to provide housing for workers in the shipbuilding industry, for which Newark and surrounding areas was a major national focus. The study involved a household survey of all the workers and their families in each of the two communities. The plan was to associate social characteristics-class, race, family size-with community participation. Craftown proved very unusual for the scale and intensity of participaion
\
The Columbia-Lavanburg Housing Study
IIn the 1940s, soon after joining the Columbia Sociology Department, Merton became involved in the Hilltown-Craftown study: a survey of two planned communities of similar size-about seven hundred households-but different racial composition and economic setting. Hilltown was within the city limits of Piittsburgh, while Craftown was in Linden, New Jersey, part of metropolitan Newark. Craftown was a federal project named Winfield Park. The actual name of Hilltown remains to be discovered.
Craftown was designed to provide housing for workers in the shipbuilding industry, for which Newark and surrounding areas was a major national focus. The study involved a household survey of all the workers and their families in each of the two communities. The plan was to associate social characteristics-class, race, family size-with community participation. Craftown proved very unusual for the scale and intensity of participaion
I
NOTE THAT THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
RARE BOOK AND MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY AND OF THE ROBERT MERTON
ESTATE; BEYOND "FAIR USE" PRINCIPLES IT CANNOT BE COPIED
OR OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED WITHOUT THEIR EXPRESS PERMISSION
Kenneth Fox email: [email protected]
When I began what has become the Merton/Columbia Project the working title was Beyond Causation, a “whither social theory” notion. It involved going back to the mid--60s when I first encountered Talcott Parsons’ The Social System (1950?) and The Structure of Social Action (1938?). I knew The Social System had met with a lot of scepticism about whether society is a system in any meaningful sense. “System” conjured forces interacting and opposing, generating change from one state of the system at T zero to another later at T one.
There had been less scepticism about the theory of the operation of social systems: structural functionalism. Institutions performed functions necessary to society. Institutions were arrayed in structures and Individuals occupied roles within institutions. Much of the discussion centered upon professional roles. Professions evolved, allowing institutional functions to be more effectively performed. Bureaucracy also endured much attention as the pattern of behavior within institutions. As is illustrated below, Robert Merton, a student of Parsons’ in the mid-1930s, who emerged as one of the leading structural functionalists, was intensely interested in developing research methods for testing hypotheses posed by structural functionalism treated as a theory.
Given the potentially mechanistic character of this type of theory when practically applied, it is remarkable to see what Merton and his Columbia University colleagues did with it. Almost every year beginning in the mid-1940s, soon after Merton arrived at Columbia, he taught a course for graduate sociology students labelled History of Sociological Theory. In 1945-1947 the specific subject was "Social Organization of Housing Communities" for which the readings included prominent items of the planning literature of that time: Modern Housing by Catherine Bauer; Lewis Mumford's "The Planned Community" in Architectural Forum, April 1933; Rehousing America by Henry Wright.... A "Brief Bibliography on Growth of the City" accompanied the syllabi and includes Harland Bartholomew's Urban Land Uses, Homer Hoyt's One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago; and the multi-volume Regional Survey of New York and Environs, (1929)....
My sense of why housing, communities and community planning were attractive as an approach to developing structural functional theory involves three factors: 1. communities can be treated as social structures; 2. community planning can be treated as functional responses to social needs; and 3. cities had been a prominent focus of the American sociology of the previous generation, from which a new theoretical and practical orientation could evolve. In published and manuscript materials, Merton has discussed the development of structural functionalism and aspects of that development appear in these syllabi and the bibliography. Much more is available throughout the Papers, including notes of several talks Merton gave in the early 1970s. He credits Parsons chiefly, and a group of Parsons' Harvard graduate students of the mid-1930s, students drawn together by their alienation from the sociology they were crammed full of as undergraduates. Merton was one of these. (Kingsley Davis was another; I continue to seek names of the others; Merton does not name them in the talks.)
Prominent in the earlier sociology was the work of the "Chicago School", led by Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, Roderick McKenzie and, a bit later, Louis Wirth. Their approach involved such notions as "natural areas" of the city, "neighborhoods" as objects of analysis, and types of cities: "satellite" cities, suburbs.... Following upon their work in the 1920s this evolved as urban "ecology" which ran parallel with the development of structural functionalism, although with less promotion as a "theory". Ecology has tended to be more descriptive, emphasizing classification. I have sometimes called this sort of approach "descriptive" theory. Louis Wirth's article "Urbanism as a way of life" is a major achievement of this approach, published in 1938.
I have attached three items from the Merton papers (see tabs above). Despite appearing here, they remain the property of the Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library and of the Robert Merton Literary Estate. This means that they must not be copied or otherwise appropriated from this website without the express authorization of the Library and the Estate. Permission has been provided for the items to be displayed here. It is essential to the ongoing development of access to archival materials on websites such as this one that there not be abuses of the permission conditions.
The first document is the syllabus for Sociology 150 given in Spring 1947: Social Organization of Housing Communities. Merton developed this course as the offering for that semester under the general heading "History of Sociological Theory", indicating that the larger objective was to explain how studying housing communities contributed to the development of theory. Items such as Catherine Bauer's Modern Housing could be analyzed to interpret housing development in terms of functions performed to meet needs. Charles Abrams's The Future of Housing could also be analyzed to argue that functions would be central to housing developments to come. Henry Wright's Rehousing Urban America represents a social structure perspective, in that all housing nationwide is conceptualized as an entity which can then be analyzed to argue that functions are central to the nationwide character of the "structure". What I expect to be able to show is that these items were evidence for Merton to claim that social structure and associated functions had already been recognized by people looking at housing and communities. Structural-functional theory could therefore be developed with these materials as its content.
The role of the sociology of the previous generation is somewhat in evidence here and more so in the following items. The ecological approach of the Chicago school argued in terms of areas of cities being constituted by aspects of the city in its entirety. So for example one sees further down that students were directed to Zorbaugh's The Gold Coast and the Slum, one of the classic Chicago treatises and still, today, enlightening as well as fun to read. Treating all of the housing of Chicago's population as a single entity would have gone against the grain of the Chicago School/ecological approach. I don't believe that for Merton any of this meant that the sociology of the 20s was not important and valuable to developing the structural-functional theory of the 40s and following. An interesting aspect of the syllabus and the bibliography that may reflect Merton's ambivalence about the previous generation is that neither includes a prominent article by another of his Harvard professors, Pitrim Sorokin: "Is Accurate Social Planning Possible, American Sociological Review, 1, no. 1, Feb. 1936, 25. Merton's complicated personal and professional relationship with Sorokin is well known so there is no possibility he omitted this item inadvertently.
Another source for development of functional theory was functional theory in social anthropology. Merton explains in his informal history of 1971 that the work of A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski was particularly influential. One article of Radcliffe-Brown's is assigned here. Merton held John Dollard in very high regard and routinely assigned his Caste and Class in a Southern Town in his classes. Merton prized social anthropology for its methods, especially for field work. In addition to absorbing theory, students in Sociology 150 were being prepared to do field work for a course paper and hopefully, for many of them, for their dissertations.
The second document is a bibliography of items to provide the students a background and foundation in city analyses of various types: historical, economic, cultural and so on. Sociology 149 was taught in the Fall semester and followed by 150 in the Spring. I am hoping to find a syllabus for 149 as my digging in the Papers continues. With his immersion in these items, Merton could have taught an excellent and very up-to-date course in city planning. Columbia had a prominent architectural school at this time; I need to find out whether they offered a planning degree as well.
On this list we see items by W. Lloyd Warner, including Social Life of a Modern Community (1941), the first of Warner's multi-volume study of Yankee City (Newburyport, MA). Warner was twelve years or so older than Merton but overlapped his time at Harvard for about two years. Warner was a grad student in both Anthropology and Business, and went on to teach at Chicago as professor of anthropology and sociology. (see Warner's Wikipedia entry). For Merton, Yankee City was structural-functional sociology, and in 1947 it was the outstanding published example of such analysis.
Also very important are Robert and Helen Lynd's Middletown (1929) and Middletown in Transition (1937). Middletown appears on the syllabus and Middletown in Transition on this list. Together they constitute an extremely broad but also detailed analysis of Muncie, Indiana, home at that time of the Ball Glass Jar Company and of a large Chevrolet transmission plant. Robert Lynd obtained his Ph.D. in sociology at Columbia n 1931 and immediately began a long career in the Columbia department. His relationship to structural-functional theory is diffuse; he considered himself to be studying the differing "cultures" of social classes and the focus of the two Middletown studies is the differences between the cultures of the "business" class and the "working" class. Probably the Lynds' chief contribution to developing structural-functional theory was their treatment of the differing values of the business and working classes. Throughout its history structural-functional theory struggled to deal adequately with "values": how they arise, how conformity to them is maintained; how they change. Values are prominent in Parsons's famous (notorious?) four fold schema, but always shadowed by doubts about their role, including Parsons's own doubts.
The third document is proving to be the most interesting of the three. It describes twelve proposed topics for course papers the students would research and write in the Spring semester. Item 4 "Cross-cultural Comparisons of the Concepts of Privacy" is intriguing. Cross-cultural refers to classes with differing cultures, the Lynd's approach. In terms of developing structural-functional theory, the topic is notable for referencing "functions" of privacy. This means its functions for society, not for individuals, for whom privacy would serve psychological needs. (I am trying to avoid getting entangled in social psychology versus sociology, both here and in my project generally) To a city planner of 1947, this notion of a community-wide function performed by "privacy" would presumably have seemed important to ponder, particularly how to "ensure" adequate privacy. Radburn, Sunnyside Gardens, Greenbelt and pioneering projects like them built from the 20s through the 40s clearly incorporated a lot of thought about what the "lived experience" of the eventual residents would be like, including whether they would feel they had enough privacy. Pardon the "lived experience", a notion I actually despise. Merton's own research at this time included a study of a low-income housing development in New Jersey. The tasks included the types of analysis proposed here in items 2, 7 and 8-11. Department graduate students assisted Merton on this project;
A practical aspect of Merton's way of proceeding becomes very interesting in the context of our roundtable on websites and blogs. Merton's published work is remarkably different from other sociologists in that it tends to consist of almost literary treatments of concepts and topics: anomie, the "unanticipated consequences of purposive social action", "science and democracy", "the self-fulfilling prophecy" (how many people realize Merton contrived this now ubiquitous notion in 1948). He also seems to have been first to use the term "role model". Last, appearing posthumously, is The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity, which many consider pure pleasure to read (for sociologists anyway). Because of his unique way of choosing what to publish, there are quite a few aspects of the theory he came to espouse that are not available in the published works. Prominent among these is how social change is conceived in the theory. Merton's response to questions about this was to say the treatment was available in "oral publication", meaning class lectures or other public presentations. On social change he was pressed harder and following the appearance of a festschrift published in 1975 Merton took to directing attention to a chapter by Arthur Stinchcombe, then at UC Berkeley: "Merton's Theory of Social Structure" (see: Lewis Coser, ed. The Idea of Social Structure, Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, New York, 1975, 11-33.) I think what we are now doing with websites and blogs fits nicely within Mertonian oral publication.
Stinchcombe's piece is lucid and concise and provides an excellent overview, although far from non-controversial. Stinchcombe claims Merton believes "the choice between socially structured alternatives" is the "process" that is "central to social structure". (the quoted bits are Stinchcombe's). "For Merton", Stinchcombe writes, "the utility or reinforcement of a particular alternative choice is thought of as socially established, as part of the institutional order." (at 12). The focus, for Merton, of these "choices with institutional consequence", is on "variations in the rates of choice by people differently located in the social order." (also at 12). An example would be Rosa Parks and the many months long Birmingham bus boycott she sparked. Requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus was part of the institutional order. Refusing to sit there was an "alternative choice". The whites in the front of the buses and the blacks in the back were "differently located in the social order". Und so weiter...
The Columbia-Lavanburg Housing Study
In the 1945, soon after joining the Columbia Sociology Department, Merton became director of a study of planned housing communities commissioned and funded by the Fred L. Lavanburg Foundation. involved in the Hilltown-Craftown study: a survey of two planned communities of similar size-about seven hundred households-but different racial composition and economic setting. Hilltown was within the city limits of Piittsburgh, while Craftown was in Linden, New Jersey, part of metropolitan Newark. Craftown was a federal project named Winfield Park. The actual name of Hilltown remains to be discovered.
Craftown was designed to provide housing for workers in the shipbuilding industry, for which Newark and surrounding areas was a major national focus. The study involved a household survey of all the workers and their families in each of the two communities. The plan was to associate social characteristics-class, race, family size-with community participation. Craftown proved very unusual for the scale and intensity of participaion
\
The Columbia-Lavanburg Housing Study
IIn the 1940s, soon after joining the Columbia Sociology Department, Merton became involved in the Hilltown-Craftown study: a survey of two planned communities of similar size-about seven hundred households-but different racial composition and economic setting. Hilltown was within the city limits of Piittsburgh, while Craftown was in Linden, New Jersey, part of metropolitan Newark. Craftown was a federal project named Winfield Park. The actual name of Hilltown remains to be discovered.
Craftown was designed to provide housing for workers in the shipbuilding industry, for which Newark and surrounding areas was a major national focus. The study involved a household survey of all the workers and their families in each of the two communities. The plan was to associate social characteristics-class, race, family size-with community participation. Craftown proved very unusual for the scale and intensity of participaion
I
NOTE THAT THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
RARE BOOK AND MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY AND OF THE ROBERT MERTON
ESTATE; BEYOND "FAIR USE" PRINCIPLES IT CANNOT BE COPIED
OR OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED WITHOUT THEIR EXPRESS PERMISSION
